Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
jwizzle
ParticipantI had never heard of that college (with an enrollment of 26, not a huge surprise), but I agree, it looks like an amazing school. As long as you can tolerate being nearly alone in the desert (which I totally could, minus the rattlesnakes). Although, since it’s only a 2-year college, you’ll still end up paying about the same (just slightly less) than going to a JC and transferring. But your transfer opportunities are certainly better.!
Participant[quote=squat250]what if colleges in general are all a bunch of thomas jefferson law schools?[/quote]
I think the majority are, which is why I’m a proponent of going to a UC or CSU for undergrad (depending on your future goals, as others have noted) – a good balance between cost and opportunity.
Participant[quote=squat250]
you will be stuck in CA forever probably, but that is a good thing, if you want your kid to stay in CA. CA is big, bold beautiful and diverse.
yes the odds of passing the bar are low statsistically, but that’s not a function of the school itself, it’s a function of who is going to the school.
Look– if you took the UC Hastings freshman class, put them on a bus, and sent them to this school, the bar pass rate would probably be very very close to what UC hastings’ pass rate is.
Theerstwhile hastings’ law first years could work p/t as a security guard, study nights, and maybe even have a higher pass rate, since at this “lesser” school they would actually be studying the actual subject matter on the bar exam, not waste time with “multiculturalism and the law” …or as I wasted time, with “ERISA law” and “mental health law”….
And have ZERO DEBT when it’s over…
it’s common for “lower” schools to focus on the meat and potatoes subjects (criminal procedure, evidence, wills and trusts, etc.) on the bar, while elite schools ignore the subject matter on the bar and study random shit. just to show how smart they are, they say their students will learn all the bar crap in the two month bar review course before the exam…whcih of course the goddamn STUDENT pays for… and never even take HALF the subjects ont he bar exam.
that was my experience…
am I right, JWIZZLE? of course im right, at least on this bar review bar prep bullshit. BARBRI was a few grand back in the 90’s. i just checked the website a few moments ago and saw it is $4135 today.
GOOD LORD, LAW STUDENTS OF AMERICA…is this a scam or what?
So if you know in your heart you are going to do whatever it takes to pass the bar, as I knew for an absolute certainty when i began law school, then you will pass, IF you have the mental horsepower (which i’d say is a 90% percentile on the LSAT and above–at least that puts it in the very good bet category).
the thing is, people with a 90% plus LSAt view themselves as “too smart” to go to this school.
but maybe they’re not as smart as they think.
look, I did substantially higher than a 90% plus LSAt score and went to a top 20 law school. But if I had it to do over again? no way. i’d go to ca southern–also keep in mind with my application, i’d probably get a free ride at this school too…
I disagree with you that p/t 7,000 school is the “same”as 11k full time, since many people can pull together 7k p/t per yearand pay as you go, but when you start to get much higher, you start accruing interest bearing debt.
for my own kid, I am absolutely certain if he went to this school, and wanted to pass the bar exam, he would pass the bar exam, if he wanted it…[/quote]
I don’t disagree with you on several of these points. These schools low passage rate are most likely a function of the student body. Your smart son could go someplace like that and pass the bar if he wanted to. He may or may not waste time studying “useless” subjects, although that is partially up to him (I took most of the so-called “bar” classes in law school and didn’t have any interest in “multiculturalism and the law” type classes). It is possible to work part time while in law school, regardless of where you go – I know, I did it my 2nd and 3rd years to decrease my debt load. My grades were actually better when I worked p/t. I didn’t make nearly enough to actually pay for tuition, but I did take home enough to cover a lot of my living expenses.
As far as teaching and Barbri, most people will end up paying for Barbri regardless of where they go to law school – there is so much to remember that most people need the refresher. Barbri IS a total racket. It is also an “investment” – learning the test so that you won’t have to take it over and over again (which, at $614-750 per, depending on whether you use a laptop, can add up fast if you need multiple attempts).
Look, I don’t disagree that most law schools are way overpriced. And some of the analysis changes when you are talking about someone out of undergrad vs. a 2nd career adult. If you are looking at a 2nd career as an adult, something like California Southern might work out. For someone young, I lean the opposite direction as you – rather than look someplace super inexpensive, where they can avoid debt, I want the debt to pencil out financially. I want them to be employable. I don’t want them to be like one of my co-workers, who was 2nd in her class at Thomas Jefferson and has complex lit work and community recognition for her accomplishments (and who is very good looking, statistically increasing her likelihood of getting a job), but who absolutely cannot get an interview anywhere else because people can’t look past the name of her law school. And, as much as I hate to imagine my kids moving away from me, I think it’s a little selfish to try to limit their opportunities geographically by encouraging a local non-accredited school.
Basically, if my kids couldn’t or didn’t get into a T14 law school where they have a very good chance of getting a good paying job that can comfortably service the debt/pay it off at an accelerated rate (and make valuable connections that will help them throughout their career), I would tell them they should reconsider law school.
Participant[quote=squat250]http://www.cslawschool.com/financial-information/tuition-and-fees/
law school, 7k a year.
many working lawyers in riv cty went there.
no one is laughing. many judges went there too…
check out the alumni list on the left of the tuition …
http://www.cslawschool.com/financial-information/tuition-comparison/
there’s a tuition comparison.
this school isn’t the low price leader though i dont think. there’s others like it.
if you really want to make it as an attorney…you will…regardless of the school.[/quote]
I see three issues with something like this school:
(1) it’s a part time program, so on an apples-to-apples comparison to a full-time law program, it’s closer to $11k a year for tuition. Plus $700 per attempt to pass the baby bar
(2) my quick google search (since I admittedly have never heard of California Southern) informed me that in 2010, 3 of 33 people passed the bar. I found a link showing pass percentages (although not numbers, so this is a little misleading) – no one passed the first time in the July 2010 and 2011 exams. Between 1997 and 2007, only 32% of grads passed the bar (21% first try, 11% on repeat trys). And this is after the “hopeless” cases have theoretically been weeded out with the baby bar, which I have also heard is fairly hard.
(3) if you do manage to pass the bar, you will almost certainly be stuck practicing in California forever, since it’s not accredited and most other states do no permit people from non-ABA schools to sit for their bars.
These points pretty much apply to all non-accredited schools. To me, going to a non-accredited school is like putting $30k down on 00 on a roulette table. Maybe you are right that if someone wants to make it, they will, but the odds are really against you.
Participant[quote=spdrun]
jwizzle – California has nothing like the City University of NY/Queens, where law school is something like $13k/yr if you’re a resident of NYC? Quite a few respected attorneys have come through there.[/quote]
Not really. We have the UC system – Cal, UCLA, Irvine, Davis, and Hastings have law schools – but tuition is still $45k+ per year for CA residents (tuition has increased nearly 4-fold since I applied for law school in 2003!). It’s $10k-ish more for out of state residents. None of the Cal State schools have law schools. I actually know some attorneys who have come from CUNY, which would be a fantastic option in NY for someone looking to save money, assuming they lived in NY.
Participant[quote=squat250]one way law school could make sense:
you just get an A.A. degree (you do NOT need a 4 year degree to sit for the bar in CA; check the rules); and then go to a super cheap small law school. say 8k a year. pay as you go and pass the bar.
[/quote]
scaredy, aren’t you a lawyer? IMR you graduated a while ago, but I imagine you know this: there is no such thing as an $8k a year law school that wouldn’t be laughed at by potential employer. Even Thomas Jefferson and Cal Western are insanely expensive – like $42k per year – and those barely make the cut as “real” schools (and what I mean by “real” is that you have at least a 50% chance of passing the bar and getting a job as a lawyer after graduation). I went to the highest ranked school in So. Cal., though, so I might be biased. And, even graduating at what I speculate was the bottom 40% of my class, I have a good-paying job. I graduated in 2006, which wasn’t the worst year ever, but did see a number of my friends get laid off during the down years in biglaw.
As far as seeing JC transcript, law schools absolutely do see them and grades you earned while at a JC. Not entirely sure if that makes a difference, but I do recall that about 5% of people from my graduating class came from CSU/SUNY schools. Roughly 80% came from Ivys/top tier UC schools (Cal, UCLA, or UCSD). Your undergrad matters.
I personally plan on pushing my kids to go to a 4 year school (preferably a UC, if it is still cheaper than private schools in 15+ years) because I think it makes a difference in how seriously they take school. I am also saving already so they don’t start buried in debt, although I do think they should have some skin in the game. Everyone in my husband’s family thinks we are crazy for saving and that kids should go to a JC first. But of the 7 kids/stepkids from his generation, all went to a JC for some period of time, none except my husband have degrees from a 4 year university, and only one makes over $50k a year, which is enough to make me ignore their admonitions that we will be wasting our money.
October 24, 2012 at 3:30 PM in reply to: OT- If you find a rattlesnake in your back yard-do you kill it? #753139Participant[quote=upwardspiral]I live on a view lot in Stonebridge. I killed a baby rattlesnake just last week. It is important to note that baby rattlesnakes are much more dangerous than adults. Babies are born with fangs and venom, but do not yet have the ability to control the amount of venom they pump. This is not to say that I would not kill an adult rattle snake. I have two dogs and a very curious 3 year old son. [/quote]
I read somewhere recently that the baby rattlers are more dangerous thing is a myth. It’s true they cannot control their venom, but they have much less venom than an adult, so it’s a wash. One thing is that a baby is much less likely to give you a ” dry” bite, so in that respect, they are more dangerous.
I think it’s interesting how many of us have 3 year olds!
October 24, 2012 at 3:02 PM in reply to: OT- If you find a rattlesnake in your back yard-do you kill it? #753134ParticipantBG – I live in UC too, I have heard of other friends/neighbors on canyons finding them. I know of one couple that found a healthy 5-footer in their kitchen. After I heard this, I ruled out all canyon homes in San Diego. My husband and I have considered a move to olivenhain/rsf in a couple of years, fear of rattlesnakes has been what holds me back. I am truly phobia-afraid – I get hysterical seeing snakes on tv or at the zoo.
Navydoc – the answer is yes, it is absolutely dying. But I can guarantee not by me – hopefully the hubby would respond to the hysterical screaming before I passed out and made myself an easy target for the snake.
August 14, 2012 at 9:40 AM in reply to: OT: Compelling new Reason to never borrow a dime for school #750275Participantdeleted – double post. Stupid slow internet.
August 14, 2012 at 9:39 AM in reply to: OT: Compelling new Reason to never borrow a dime for school #750274Participant[quote=squat250]I left law school in 1995 with $95,000.00 in debt. Not sure what that is inflation-adjusted. Probably a lot.
Timing is everything. That debt was a good deal at the time for me, in retrospect. It still might be a good deal. It’s just, there’s less room to change direction nowadays. You better be damn sure what you’re doing when you have 250,000 in student debt.
[/quote]
I left law school about a decade later, with about $50k more debt (total for undergrad and law – although most was law). The debt was a good deal for me also. I disagree about room to change direction – I have a lot of friends and colleagues who have done so less than a decade after graduating. Admittedly, I went to a high-ranking law school, which plays a key role in the ability to switch course in a way that is not financially disastrous. Most of these people went to big firms, were miserable for a few years, paid their law debt, then found something they loved doing (opening small offices, non-profit work, government work, moving to africa with the peace corps, etc). So, my addendum to “damn sure what you are doing” is “or put yourself in a position where you can quickly dig yourself out if you aren’t sold on that course.”
And BG – you are right about holding off on some larger financial purchases (like a house) – I just bought last year, despite making a low 6-figure income for 5 years prior, because qualifying and saving for a decent down payment was harder with paying off law school debt. But the flip side to that is that my income is easily 2-3 times what I would be making if I hadn’t gone to law school (I took a year off and worked as an accountant, so I have a good basis for saying this). The difference in monthly debt payments vs. monthly income, and the type of house/area where I was able to purchase, is more than worth it.
Participant[quote=Hobie]Jwizzle: Are you saying it is ok for a tenant to subjectively break a lease and incur no penalty?
Does this apply equally to commercial buildings? In commercial buildings I’ve leased I had to put up a personal guarantee ( credit card or bank routing number ) with some owners.
So only if the owner can’t find a new tenant then the leaseholder becomes liable?[/quote]
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I am pretty sure it only applies to residential properties, not commercial, although i’m not a real estate attorney so don’t take this as legal advice. California law is very pro-tenant for residential situations, which overrides pro-landlord leases. I believe there is less law regulating commercial leases because you are usually dealing with more sophisticated parties.
And in the context of residential landlord-tenant law, yes, a leaseholder is really only liable to the extent that the landlord cannot find a new tenant (and like I said, landlord needs to show diligence and good faith in trying to find a new tenant). Like matt-waiting above said, this is to prevent the landlord from receiving a windfall from the lease being broken – the most that can happen is that the landlord should be made whole when this happens (i.e. gets rent they expected).
Participant[quote=Hobie]Does your lease allow cancellation? Doubt it. Say nothing, he will move then send him a bill pro-rating the remainder of the lease. Certified of course.[/quote]
Notwithstanding the servicemember issue here (which prevents you from doing this if they qualify), I urge anyone thinking about this approach to remember that as a landlord, you have the duty to mitigate damages. This means that you have to start looking for a new tenant in a timely manner, and that you cannot simply let a place stay vacant because you aren’t happy with potential. I had a landlord try to do this to me when I broke a lease because I was being relocated for my job (not service related), then try to sue me in small claims for the pro-rated amount. I found two other people who were willing to rent my place at the same price I was paying, but the landlord rejected them because he wanted more money in rent. I won in small claims because I showed that he was not making a good faith effort to mitigate.*
In my experience (from this and dealing with my parent’s rental properties), small claims tends to be very tenant-friendly. The best thing to do is to just try and find someone asap, and see if the tenant will work with you on letting potential tenants view the property.
* I will admit that the fact that I am a lawyer probably helped me out in small claims, and that most tenants would probably not be able to defend themselves as well as I did.
Participant[quote=moneymaker]Does anybody know if CA puts points on record here for infractions in other states?[/quote]
Yes, they do, although i’m not sure if they communicate with all states. My husband got a point in CA for running a stop sign in Colorado (the sign was buried in 5 feet of snow and barely sticking out, so it was kinda bs). I think the points/insurance raise cost more than the ticket did – the ticket was only around $50! (compared to here, where they are are several hundred dollars, it was a “bargain”)
Participant[quote=spdrun]Didn’t the War Zone nickname stem from a war between bikie gangs in the 60s? i.e. something that’s been long forgotten.[/quote]
It went through the 80’s. It’s probably been long forgotten by most, but my husband and all his friends who grew up in the neighborhood still call it that, mostly jokingly/for ease of reference to distinguish the neighborhoods.
-
AuthorPosts